Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
WHUT (Howard University Television) 2
CNBC 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WETA 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
interconnected with the rest of the world. >> foreign policy is actually not foreign. >> america has faced great hardship before and each time we have risen to the challenge. >> the ultimate test is to move our society from where it is to where it has never been. >> join us as we explore today's most critical global issues. join us for great decisions. >> great decisions is produced by the foreign policy association, inspiring americans to learn more about the world. sponsorship of great decisions is provided by credit suisse, eni, the hurford foundation, and pricewaterhousecoopers llp. >> coming up next, the intervention calculation. (instrumental music) >> historically the u.s. leaned heavily on strategic interventions to help counter the influence of communism. >> the reagan doctrine was a notion that we would support those that sought to oppose soviet domination. >> during the cold war there was a polarized world - there was the soviet union, there was the united states and a lot of our interventions were used to block the advance of communism, and so very ideological basis for our, our inte
that is a loss in trying to create a bipartisan foreign policy in washington and the reduction was probably one of the most important congressional initiatives that we have ever seen. the idea that you could take that kind of money from the defense budget that didn't make the military very happy and apply it to demilitarizing the strategic arsenal of the former soviet union was extremely important. we go from bush to clinton, clinton didn't want to deal with foreign policy like so many presidents they felt they were elected to do domestic things. clinton had no background in foreign policy, no interest in the foreign policy. people say they went to georgetown, the school really wasn't good enough as i am concerned. i hope i am not offending anyone in georgetown she put together a security team all of them were gone within a year or two for the most part when you look at christopher and the cia was a very peculiar appointment. he did something that needs to be corrected. he was in the foreign policy bureaucracy as i am concerned he brought to the right wing and abolishing the arms control and di
to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so they're going to stick with whatever obama wants. it really is up to the president to find a way grace
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
get away. went into iraq. when you look at how he conducted foreign policy between iraq and afghanistan and how this president has gotten us out of iraq and afghanistan, gotten bin laden and is certainly a lot less casualties than we've been having but that being said, you know chris, we should have a legal expert out on what makes you an american citizen or not or whether that makes you an enemy combatant, i don't know. >> well, you know, also we created al-qaeda since osama bin laden and ha deem to go after the soviets in afghanistan. we really have nothing to complain about. we put that all in motion. >> stephanie: richard in chicago. >> caller: good morning. i think -- i'm a big obama supporter but this is just wrong. i do feel like -- and i'm not going to blame this -- this policy is an obama policy. the escalation of drones. it has been happening. you know i just think it is a slippery slope where it turns into a convenient way to intervene, you know. you can withdraw from afghanistan and iraq without using drones. this is just an escalation of his policy and you k
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
for both the law, for our foreign policy, and for civilians in a killing program that we should be doubly concerned in getting that information out there, so that we make sure that we don't make those mistakes or we correct them when we do. >> let's close with a brief discussion on the issue of surveillance and eavesdropping. on the 31st of december, the president extended this controversial wiretapping act until 2017. the f.i.s.a. act? >> foreign intelligence rveiance act. >> rig. are you both troubled by the seeming lack of oversight for this extension of surveillance and wiretapping of suspected terrorists in this country? do you think there's a real danger here? >> i think there's a tremendous danger. and i think, you know there has been a codification of the expansion of power under george bush. and so any time that congress or through policies that are happening now that we're institutionalizing, codifying, making hard in our infrastructure things at we lirally thkable n or 11 years ago is of tremendous concern to us. it shows our slippage. and we don't always realize that that's wh
finney, a columnist with the hill, and michael o'hanlon, senior foreign policy fellows at the brookings institution. welcome to you both. mike, if i can start with you. in addition to the many other responsibilities that you yourself carry, you're also a member of the cia's external advisory board. are you satisfied with john brennan's responses, particularly in relation to the drone program? >> well, you know, martin, i do think we need checks and balances in our system, and i think groping towards the right way to handle a question of whether it be drones or some other kind of use of force, the broader question here is using force in a country where we haven't before or against a person we haven't before, possibly an american citizen when you have got this very broad authorization on the use of force against an enemy that's very generally defined going back to the 2001 legislation. so it's bigger than any one technology that might be used. but, no, i'm not totally comfortable yet, martin. i still wonder if we need some kind of internal executive branch but totally independent check. i
of the narrative of what the rest of his foreign policy was like. >> sure. there would be hearings in the senate and in the house and it may be not in the house. under boehner but certainly there would be hearings and demands for full disclosure. >> there would be more foreign anger about it. it sort of goes to show, you know, how much president obama sort of changed the idea of, you know, of what he is about allows him perhaps more freedom to do some of these things than bush might have had given sort of how he is -- the beginnings of his foreign policy. >> the whole question of drones in the obama administration, are we letting him get away with stuff that we would never let george bush get away with? the question reed, somebody one to think about. 866-55-press. you know the toll-free number. the president is pursuing this double agenda right now, the sequester still loom can. i want to get to that in just a moment. but right now, he will give a speech on guns and a speech on immigration reform. he is pushing both. how do you assess the chances of bot
, republican -- one comes in and another goes out. nothing seems to change. it is the exact same foreign policy. it is almost like there is an unseen hand behind both parties. host: do you think you have been given full information about what is happening with the use of drones? do you want to know more about what the u.s. is doing or do you feel like you know enough? caller: what i have seen it, -- abc, cbs, all that a -- i mean, we will never know what they are doing with them. but my main concern, since i've lived in america and i am an american, is there are plans to have drones patrolling our skies. homeland security has ordered drones. they say they are just for surveillance, but it is not a good idea to have remote- control -- heavy ever read "1984" by george orwell? it started like that. you can't have so much power congregated in so few hands. it is in its power to have not only surveillance from the air but also bombing capability, remote-controlled bombing capability. and the decisions made by just a very few people. over a whole population -- it is even passed what george orwell cou
party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy, something that reagan did that was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years. reagan was also all social conservative, very proud one. so he talked about abortion, the pro-life movement, in a way that had never happened. so that was a huge shift. reagan changed the republican party in profound ways. since reagan, there has not been that many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed it in ways that are helpful. on immigration and the attempted, and on education and the whole notion that we republicans have concern for the common good and have asked france and community and civic organizations. host: now to the democratic line in connecticut. caller: i used to be a republican many moons ago. i voted for bush i over bill clinton as a matter of fact. now i don't know who the republican party is. i went from the republicans to an independent to democrats. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. member two, wo
.did it and that really became a cornerstone of the republican party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy was sent and reagan did there was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years and rake in the cells of a social conservative, a very proud one. so these types, for example, about abortion in a way they never had. reagan changed the republican party. since reagan, there have been then not many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed in ways i think was hopeful, both about immigration he attempted and also on education and relive the whole notion we republicans have concern to strengthen community and the organization. >> host: democrats fine. >> caller: hi, i used to be a republican many moons ago. matter of fact, i voted for bush ones over bill clinton and now quite frankly i don't know who the republican party is. i went from republicans to independents, to democrat. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. number two, women's issues. i don't personally be
think barack obama has been trying to gets us out of george bush's foreign policy mistakes, but i get your point. let's go to brad in dallas. >> caller: hey. so i work in healthcare in dallas, and i heard a story -- about five years ago, a suburban doctor was going to have to close his practice because his patients were aging. more of them were getting on medicare, and he was finding that he couldn't make a profit in his practice anymore. and so -- as usual what the republicans are doing is taking something that was happening anyway and drawing a line to something in the administration. >> stephanie: right. >> caller: this hand before obamacare was even voted on. so it is going on in some places -- >> stephanie: right. some of the insurance companies are obviously racing to raise their rates before obamacare kicks in, and then people are going oh it's obamacare, see what happens. >> caller: yeah, absolutely. >> stephanie: i'm sorry i thought you saw some other cute animal. >> no. no. i'm monitoring your social media. >> stephanie: oh, thank you. how is that going
to the west bank and jordan in the spring, stepping into some of the thorniest foreign-policy challenges facing his second term. also, and other news, about sequestration, the across-the- board spending cuts for the defense department and non- defense programs. here's the economy and business section of the washington post -- march 1 is that deadline. and the navy trims a goal for the size of its fleet, which has sparked concern on capitol hill. those are some other headlines for you this morning. also, we told you yesterday about the justice department deciding to sue the s&p ratings company over the financial crisis and how they rated the mortgage bonds. "usa today" money section says -- we will go to randy in missouri, democratic caller. back to our topic, randy, about drone strikes on u.s. citizens overseas. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. this policy out there is not something that has been a secret. it has always been out there. even people in the senate knew about this policy. second, this is about people who are taking up arms who are u.s. citizens, deciding to plot with t
interrogation techniques and barack obama spent most of his first term ripping president bush on his policies and even did it on foreign soil. >> under my administration the united states does not torture. my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the geneva conventions. >> waterboarding is torture. it is contrary to america's traditions. it is contrary to our ideals. that s not who we are. that is not how we operate and anybody who was actually -- has actually read about and understands the practice it of waterboarding would say that that is torture. and that is not something we do. period. >> sean: we don't torture terrorists we just kill them. endorsing torture, running a lawless president icy with this drone program obama has gone lightyears beyond what the bush administration did. and by the way, if bush ever attempted this narrative, these policies, i'm telling you democrats would have been calling for are bush's impeachment. it is important to remind the american people exactly what the bush administration did in terms
earning two purple hearts, served on the senate committee on intelligence and committee on foreign relations, swels the president's intelligence agency. and the secretary of defense policy board. no one can argue chuck hagel's experienced. i know that chuck hagel is the right man to lead the department of defense through this very difficult economic time. he's a man that will uphold the constitution and do what is right for this country. our military and the american people need chuck hagel to be the secretary of defense. mr. speaker, before closing i must say that in my many years here in washington of 18 years, i have never known a person with more integrity than senator hagel. and i hope that the senatelogical pass on the confirmation of chuck hagel to be the secretary of defense because america needs him, our military needs him, and it's time for people of integrity to step up and help us fix the problem facing our nation. and he will speak freely and honestly about what is needed to keep a strong military. i yield back the balance of my time. sara: the gentleman yields back. t
citizens on foreign soil without a trial, without any due process setting the president up basically to be judge and jury and executioner. is that the best policy for the united states? is that really justified? what's the difference between doing that and george bush practicing torture waterboarding, rendition, and illegal wiretapping? all of those questions we want to hear from you at 866-55-press. on the other hand, a lot of you said yesterday, it's true. it's better than putting boots on the ground. shouldn't there be some limits and guidelines? back to tour comments on that and more information about it in just a second. but first, looking at the end defendant month which just passed and trying to pay those january bills and having a hard time? maybe you are looking for some extra money that you can make from home to supplement your income. here is the ticket: income at home.com. they are america's leading work from home business, doing business in over 80 countries today. they got it down and they can easily give you this opportunity no matter yo
the world, senate foreign relations committee. chuck hagel, enlisted man veteran. >> pulled his brother out of a burning vehicle, leaving skardz to his body. these people are not, you know, light-weights. disagree with them on policy basis or whatever you want to say but they are not light-weights. chuck hagel, again, we talked about him a few minutes ago stand-up guy, john kerry, former nominee of his party to be president of the united states. these are not new people or lightweights. but they are not neocohs either. jake calling from eureka,cal. >> i think keeping them on the public airways will ensure the republican parties they are not the best face of the republican party. >> on the domestic side, they are trying to find this new generation, better faces, paul ryans and marco rub yes, sir talking about tupak apparently on interviews now. don't go away. don't go away. i want to hold on because we have something special coming your way a $50 gift certificate for pro-flowers you can use for this valentine's day and the rest of you type in press, you
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)